Patachon at Daily KOS has pointed out an article from 1967 with eerie parallels to today. As the original article appeared just four months before the Tet Offensive, one has to hope that history does not repeat itself too closely.

Please note that this ia an actualNew York Times article. It has not been altered in any way. This is not a parody:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.

Significance Not Diminished

The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.

The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting.

American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon.

January 28, 2005

It is simply unacceptable for the United States of America to have the prime legal architect for the policy of torture adopted by the Bush Dynasty as the Attorney General of this country.

A country founded on the rights of the individual cannot sanctify a person to be the Attorney General of these United States who sanctified torture as long as it wasn't "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

The US Attorney General's job is to function as the chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. In that capacity the US Attorney General provides assistance and guidance to the heads of executive departments of the Government.

We already know that Alberto R. Gonzales advised the President that the United States Constitution does not apply to his actions as Commander in Chief, and thus the President could declare the Geneva Conventions (which Gonzales views as "quaint") inoperative.

We know that Alberto R. Gonzales believes that the President has the power to ignore the Constitution, laws duly enacted by Congress and International treaties duly ratified by the United States.

These views are unacceptable in a US Attorney General.

For these reasons, the 2 Political Junkies blog opposes the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, and we urge the Senate to reject him.

We also stand with the Daily KOS blog in asking all bloggers of good conscience to oppose his nomination.

We also congratulate the Democratic members of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary who all voted against the nomination of Gonzales:

Here's a real gem of a statement from Chris Chiames (US Airways senior vice president of corporate affairs) commenting on Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato's righteous anger at US Air's betrayal of Pittsburgh:

Onorato's comments yesterday were not "constructive," Chiames said. "If those are the charges he wants to make about the company and about me personally, I guess he is free to make them," but it is "not conducive to a working relationship."

"Working relationship?" What working relationship?!?

It's 830 Pennsylvanians who will soon not be working for US Air In PA.

Who in their right mind at this point would believe a single thing said by an executitve at US Air???

January 26, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Thirty-one Marines were killed in a helicopter crash near Iraq's border with Jordan, bringing the number of U.S. troops killed Wednesday to 37 -- the deadliest day for U.S. forces since the start of the war in Iraq.

Four U.S. Marines were killed during combat in Iraq's Al-Anbar province, and two U.S. soldiers were killed in attacks in the Baghdad area, according to the U.S. military.

Times have changed, but the Pennsylvania State Legislature has not. In 1999, the Pennsylvania State Legislature attempted to address the challenge of unintended pregnancy in our state. Did they promote comprehensive sex education, insurance coverage for birth control, or emergency contraception for rape survivors? No. They created "Chastity Awareness Week."

If our lawmakers want to make chastity our only option, shouldn't they give us the right accessories? Order your chastity belt from the Pennsylvania State Legislature TODAY! Then, ask for more than a chastity belt this year - ask them for real choices.

Chastity Belt: the way to not do itIn vogue in the Middle Ages, chastity belts are making a come back in PA! Get one today from the Pennsylvania State Legislature.

Saturday Night Live lampooned the Rice hearings this weekend. While they did skewer Rice, they also made Barbara Boxer look flighty as all hell. Of course, Fox And Friends this morning is only picking up on the Boxer is CRAZY meme.

This all is leading to another shamless plug for my store:

Many more style available HERE.
(Boxer boxer shorts to be added soon, as well as DfA Pittsburgh gear.)

And just in case you haven't gotten around to getting a 2005 calendar, here's one that can reflect your Anti-Bush stance 24/7, 365 days a year:

January 23, 2005

A Daily Kos diary recounts a recent breakfast meeting of the California Democratic Club. It was attended by several DNC representatives who will later vote for the new chairman of the DNC. A full hour of the meeting was devoted to 90-second speeches by regular folks in support of their candidate for DNC chair.

According to the piece:

"100% -- every single one -- of the endorsements from the folks who came out to Sacramento at their own expense and effort, just to speak for 90 seconds to the decision makers, went to Howard Dean."

One of the endorsements summed it up particularly well:

"Some of you in the DNC may see us as barbarians at the gate. Some of us see ourselves as the cavalry. The truth is, we are fresh horses."

Excerpted from a speech delivered by Martin Luther King Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City:

"Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.''

A poll (DSCC, probably) pitting various Democrats against Rick Santorum has generated some buzz in DC political circles. The exact numbers are hazy, but hover in the 52-38 range. The candidates? Bob Casey Jr. at 52 percent, and Santorum at 38. In fact, according to the poll, Casey would beat Rendell in a primary battle. Thankfully, that won't happen as Rendell is firmly focused on reelection to a second term as governor.

Santorum is quite obviously Democratic target numero uno, and there's no doubt that Santorum is far too conservative for Pennsylvania. He belongs more in Oklahoma with Wacky Tom Coburn than in moderate PA.

On the same topic, a recent article in "The Philadelphia Inquirer" featured a nifty map that shows where Casey won county by county -- proving him popular in both blue and red PA:

January 11, 2005

Sorry for the paucity of posts, but as it turns out I have a very sick cat (kidney problems) who has been in the hospital since Saturday.

While being quite ill, she's also one of the most aggressive (towards the staff) and angry cats that they've seen in some time (she's still pissed off that Bush won) and she won't eat unless I go there nightly to feed her.

Must be too many Conservatives at the hospital (cats can sense dangerous oncoming disasters like earthquakes and a new Bush Administration).

There is some good news. She did finally start responding to treatment last night so her kidney tests and red blood count are a little bit better -- but it's still wait and see at this point. So I'm waiting and hoping.

January 6, 2005

Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) have filed their objection to tallying Ohio's electoral votes. You can watch the the House of Representatives debate on C-SPAN and the Senate on C-SPAN II right NOW.

January 5, 2005

Contact A Progressive Senator to Contest the Electoral College Vote CountOn January 6, 2005, Congress will certify the November 2, 2004 election Electoral College vote count, unless at least one Representative and one Senator contests the election. Several Representatives stand ready to do this.

Only one senator is needed now. Please encourage Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia -- currently the most outspoken critic of Bush administration policies in the U.S. Senate -- to stand against U.S. election fraud and contest certification of the Electoral College vote count. Email Senator Byrd at: http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html Or, phone Senator Byrd at: 202-224-3954, or fax: 202-228-0002

Protest The Electoral College Vote Count"We ARE going to Washington on Thursday for a 1 day trip to protest the certification of the vote. We only need 1 Senator to refuse to certify and begin the discussion of legitimate elections in this country! Please show your support and join us. Details below. You can contact me via email at janis.jmw@comcast.net or 412-680-1626. Thanks and hope you can join us!

As you know, congress (with the likes of our Senators Spector & Santorum) will vote on January 6 to accept the electorial votes. Groups are now organizing to mobilize on the 6th in Washington. People from across the country are being encouraged to come to Washington for a vigil and rally starting at noon to demonstrate their support for congressional leaders to reject the electorial votes sent from Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, and any other states in which massive fraud and vote supression inflated Bush totals & dimished Kerry's.

Many of us did nothing to protest the results in 2000. We can't stand idly by and watch these "irregularities" rob Kerry of his victory. We have to demand an honest and transparent vote for president if nothing else. And as the website ReDefeatBush.com points out as part of the justification for this rally, we want to get the message to congress that we're watching. This rally could be over in an hour as our elected officials rubber stamp the electorial counts, but it COULD be the most exciting time in American politics for a century or so -or at least provide the cover for some in congress to vote against accepting the counts, unlike 2000 when no one voted no in the senate.

For those of you interested in making the trek, we will be leaving from the Monroeville turnpike interchange at approximately 7:00 a.m. Now, we know that's early, but the rally begins at noon. If you want to go, let us know, so that we can plan cars/drivers. If you are interested in driving to D.C. & can fit some folks in your vehicle, let us know. We are planning to go down in caravan style, parking along the metro route & taking the subway into the city (we're brave enough to take on congress, but not D.C. traffic).

We want to make a stand against dishonest elections, can you join us?????? If so, please respond to this e-mail for more details. We will try to organize drivers & passengers. Hope to see ya on the 6th.

January 4, 2005

Another good piece on Social Security today from Paul Krugman at the NYT.

It starts:

The people who hustled America into a tax cut to eliminate an imaginary budget surplus and a war to eliminate imaginary weapons are now trying another bum's rush. If they succeed, we will do nothing about the real fiscal threat and will instead dismantle Social Security, a program that is in much better financial shape than the rest of the federal government.

He explains how the claim that Social Security, is facing an imminent crisis is "simply false" because SS has it's own independent budget which has a large and growing trust.

As Krugman explains:

There are only two things that could endanger Social Security's ability to pay benefits before the trust fund runs out. One would be a fiscal crisis that led the U.S. to default on all its debts. The other would be legislation specifically repudiating the general fund's debts to retirees.

That is, we can't have a Social Security crisis without a general fiscal crisis - unless Congress declares that debts to foreign bondholders must be honored, but that promises to older Americans, who have spent most of their working lives paying extra payroll taxes to build up the trust fund, don't count.

Krugman promises to also explain in upcoming weeks how privatization will, in his words, "fatally undermine" Social Security so keep you eye on the Times.

Here's a couple of excellent articles on the real deal on Social Security:
From the New York Times:

If you've lent even one ear to the administration's recent comments on Social Security, you have no doubt heard President Bush and his aides asserting that a $10 trillion shortfall threatens the retirement system - and the economy itself. That $10 trillion hole is the basis of the president's claim last month that "the [Social Security] crisis is now." It's also the basis of the administration's claim that the cost of doing nothing to reform the system would be far greater than the cost of acting now.

Well, the $10 trillion figure is the closest you can get to pulling a number out of the air. Make that the ether. Starting last year, as the groundwork was being set for the emerging debate, the Social Security trustees took the liberty of projecting the system's solvency over infinity, rather than sticking to the traditional 75-year time horizon. That world-without-end assumption generates the scary $10 trillion estimate, and with it, Mr. Bush's putative rationale for dismantling Social Security in favor of a system centered on private savings accounts. The American Academy of Actuaries, the profession's premier trade association, objected to the change. In a letter to the trustees, the actuaries wrote that infinite projections provide "little if any useful information about the program's long-range finances and indeed are likely to mislead any [nonexpert] into believing that the program is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated."

After 1980 we started borrowing money big-time to finance our deficits -- in large part because of tax cuts on high-income earners. However you want to slice it, we started spending substantially more than we were taking in in tax revenue.

So where'd we borrow the money?

This is from memory, so I may have the numbers a bit off. But I believe about $4 trillion of that debt was borrowed on the open market -- individual Americans have them in their investment portfolios, or pension funds hold them, or the Chinese, Japanese and the Saudis and others have them in bonds.

But about $3 trillion of those dollars we needed to fund the 1980s and 1990s deficits we managed to borrow closer to home. We borrowed it from the Social Security (and a few other government) trust fund(s).

You may well ask how I know that the United States has been made safer by having elected Bush for another term and the answer is quite simple:

Since reelecting Bush, we have had a new video tape by bin Laden, we've had lasers pointed into plane cockpits, and we've just completed three major holidays without any apparent need for the Homeland Security color-coded terror alert system to be raised from yellow to orange.

We had many orange level alerts prior to the election as you can see from this chart (you''ll need to ignore the distracting correlation with Bush popularity stats -- sorry -- it was the only graph I could find):

January 1, 2005

"My local newspaper in Vermont has published several articles since the November elections about disenchanted people moving to Canada. Yes, the Presidential election was a disappointment to a lot of Americans — about 48% of them. But this is our country too, so my attitude is, "Please stay and fight." Over the next four years we have a chance to lay out a vision and a message that appeals to the best in all Americans.

Our message has to be about rebuilding community. The community we want to rebuild is one based on mutual respect. The community we want to rebuild is one based on fiscal prudence, where a dollar saved is a dollar earned so that our kids can have at least the same, if not better, opportunities than we have. Our community will be one where Americans who work hard, no matter what their wages are, have a basic standard of living which includes adequate health care. Our community will be inclusive. Our community will not turn its back on those who are members of minority groups, on American Indians, on single women with children, on people with disabilities, on public employees, on gay Americans, or on working people who make minimum wage.

Our community will be based on fairness. Our America will be a community where all really are created equal. Our community will be one where people of faith are welcomed and held up as role models, but it will also be one where those who seek to use religion as a wedge issue to teach intolerance and hate are treated as the sinners which they are.

This community will be based on values of strength, toughness, respect for others and their ideas. And above all, the notion that loving thy neighbor — all neighbors, not just some — is an essential American value.

Americans are too tough to give up easily. As we start a new year, please continue to build our community — together we can take our country back."